[camgunz]

I'm not impressed:

- if you're not passing SQLite's open test suite, you didn't build SQLite

- this is a "draw the rest of the owl" scenario; in order to transform this into something passing the suite, you'd need an expert in writing databases

These projects are misnamed. People didn't build counterstrike, a browser, a C compiler, or SQLite solely with coding agents. You can't use them for that purpose--like, you can't drop this in for maybe any use case of SQLite. They're simulacra (slopulacra?)--their true use is as a prop in a huge grift: tricking people (including, and most especially, the creators) into thinking this will be an economical way to build complex software products in the future.

[stavros]

I'm generally not this pedantic, but yeah, "I wrote an embedded database" is fine to say. If you say "I built SQLite", I expected to at least see how many of the SQLite tests your thing passed.

[gf000]

Also, the very idea is flawed. These are open-source projects and the code is definitely part of the training data.

[tux3]

That's why our startup created the sendfile(2) MCP server. Instead of spending $10,000 vibe-coding a codebase that can pass the SQLite test suite, the sendfile(2) MCP supercharges your LLM by streamlining the pipeline between the training set and the output you want.

Just start the MCP server in the SQLite repo. We have clear SOTA on re-creating existing projects starting from their test suite.

[viraptor]

This would be relevant if you could find matching code between this and sqlite. But then that would invalidate basically any project as "not flawed" really - given GitHub, there's barely any idea which doesn't have multiple partial implementations already.

[wseqyrku]

> tricking people (including, and most especially, the creators),

I believe it's an ad. Everything about it is trying so hard to seem legit and it's the most pointless thing I have ever seen.

[9dev]

Well--given a full copy of the SQLite test suite, I'm pretty sure it'd get there eventually. I agree that most of these show-off projects are just prop pieces, but that's kind of the point: Demonstrate it's technically possible to do the thing, not actually doing the thing, because that'd have diminishing returns for the demonstration. Still, the idea of setting a swarm of agents to a task, and, given a suitable test suite, have them build a compliant implementation, is sound in itself.

[kevinsync]

Sure, but that presumes that you have that test suite written without having a single line of application code written (which, to me, is counterintuitive, unrealistic, and completely insane)

SQLite apparently has 2 million tests! If you started only with that and set your agentic swarm against it, and the stars aligned and you ended up with a pristine, clean-room replica that passes everything, other than proof that it could be done, what did you achieve? You stood on the shoulders of giants to build a Bizarro World giant that gets you exactly back to where you began?

I'd be more interested in forking SQLite as-is, setting a swarm of agents against it with the looping task to create novel things on top of what already exists, and see what comes out.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite#Development_and_distrib...

[groundzeros2015]

> I'm pretty sure it'd get there eventually.

Why? The combinatorics of “just try things until you get it right” makes this impractical.

[layer8]

If you minimax for passing the SQLite test suite, I’m still not sure you’ll have a viable implementation. You can’t prove soundness of code through a test suite alone.

[kyars]

agreed!

[kyars]

sorry for misleading, added an update stating that this is a simulacra of sqlite